Comments on: No Disrespect

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:53:27 +0000

In reality, the policy did not fail because Obama made the demand, but because in the end he was unwilling to exact a price for refusal and Netanyahu already knew that he would not even try.

Obama’s maneuver would have failed even if Netanyahu had buckled to his demand and agreed to an immediate building freeze. It just wouldn’t have failed so spectacularly. Its failure was already evident back when the Israeli response to Obama’s demand was still uncertain. Even then, the Arab reaction was nowhere near what Obama had expected.

On Buchanan’s calling the things on his list signs of contempt or disrespect for America, I think he meant for American power and its agents (Obama et al.), not for baseball and apple pie. So he’s right, in his sense of the terms where disrespect is just an archaic word for defiance.

By: wufnik

wufnik — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:57:12 +0000

As far as Brazil is concerned, you could have gone even further. They're not particularly happy about the new Fourth Fleet steaming around Brazilian waters and offshore oil platforms. Nor are they thrilled with the recently signed agreement with Colombia that offers the potential for further US mischief in Latin America--see here

By: bayesian

bayesian — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:05:52 +0000

what GOM said.

Let’s expand that to say that if we as USAian people weren’t addicted to optimistic delusions as a way of life, and perhaps supported politicians who said “no, you can’t have it all” (let’s give credit where due to Carter for that, notwithstanding his multitude of other failings) … nah, ain’t gonna happen.

By: bayesian

bayesian — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:01:45 +0000

“Ironically, the push for globalization and free-trade made by Buchanan and the GOP”

Uh, tizzlor, the GOP has pushed for globalization and free-trade over Buchanan’s rather vociferous protests (at any rate, since the late 1980s – I assume that when he was in the Nixon WH Buchanan at least publically supported the free trade line – whether he objected on the inside I don’t know but would be interested in learning about).

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:24:25 +0000

Buchanan can’t quite choose between macho nationalism and a distaste for foreign entanglements. If we had a realistic view of important national interests (much more limited than either party has), we could, if need be, be more assertive in supporting them.

By: trizzlor

trizzlor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:40:03 +0000

Buchanan lives in a world where non-allied nations must acquiesce to our pressures even if it is against their larger interests, even if we offer no reward but the pleasure of our company in photo-ops. Predictably, anything less is seen as a “stinging rebuke” of the administration and another nail in the coffin of diplomacy. This is a kind of “bully with a conscience” mentality where the bully asks for you lunch money nicely before he takes it.

Ironically, the push for globalization and free-trade made by Buchanan and the GOP is exactly what has made the Bush doctrine ineffective (as well as exacerbating the immigration issue, obviously). In fact, I’m quite certain that it’s not very difficult to link globalization as the root of most of the GOPs modern day problems and miscalculations.

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:08:04 +0000

Amen to leaving Japan. It will only happen because of Japanese pressure, so I agree, bring on the pressure! Would the Chinese like to see us gone from Okinawa so much as to bargain something for it? Boy, it's been such a long time since I've read a Black Sea Fleet mention. I can remember the good old days when we had to keep them bottled up or who knows what could have happened. Believe it or not: via Wikipedia, there is only one permanently assigned ship in the 6th Fleet, and currently the entire fleet consists of 3 ships! There's some peace dividend for you.